Freedom of speech in jeopardy in the United Kingdom

Two cases out of the United Kingdom are causing great concern for the freedom of speech.

Earlier this year a Christian street preacher in England, Mike Overd, was convicted for quoting Leviticus 20:13 as a condemnation against homosexuality after a homosexual complained to police. The judge reasoned that since Leviticus 20 doesn’t just condemn homosexuality, but prescribes the death penalty for it, the preacher was inciting violence against homosexuals (even though Overd claims he did not quote the portion of the text calling for the death penalty). He even added that he would have avoided a fine had he quoted from Leviticus 18:22 instead since there is no mention of the death penalty for homosexuality in that passage.

This is troubling on a number of levels. First, the British government is fining a man for merely quoting the Bible publicly. Second, the British government is telling this preacher which parts of the Bible he can quote and which parts he can’t. Luckily, Overd was acquitted of the crime. The fact that he was ever charged and convicted initially, however, is troubling for the future of free speech in England.

And then, there is the case of Irish pastor, James McConnell who was charged with violating a law that prohibited offensive speech to be communicated via the airwaves. What was his crime? Calling Islam a satanic religion and other negative statements regarding the religion back in March 2014 during a sermon that was streamed online. He is now facing trial.

I am very much for freedom of speech, because our other freedoms depend on it, but there has to be some limitation on what we can say. The main thing that is prohibited in speech, or in writing, in UK is to incite violence, but there is also now (due to interpretation of existing laws by the judges) a degree of prohibition against causing offence. Quite often, the complaints are made by people who are not themselves affected, but they elect themselves to make a complaint on behalf of some person or group whom they think would have been offended. When such a person/people are asked if they feel offended, they usually say no. However, we have to ask ourselves if it is reasonable to say something to deliberately cause offence (excuse the split-infinitive), yet there might well be circumstances in which to speak out in support of other freedoms will inevitably cause offence to some.

1. Convicting Judge: District Judge Shamim Ahmed Qureshi
2. Solicitor at the convicting trial: Paul Diamond
3. Some people were offended decision; some were made happy

1. Appeal Court Judge: Taunton Crown Court, Circuit Judge David Ticehurst
2. Solicitor for the appeal trial: Michael Phillips
3. Some people were offended by this decision; some were made happy

What is the common, consistent thread here?
Number 3

According to German law, seventy years after the death of the author, copyright expires. This means that, unless a German court decides otherwise, as of January 1, 2016, anyone can legally publish “Mein Kampf.”
Others argue that, as long as the book is available, online or anywhere else, it is far better to make a responsible, historically accurate interpretation of it available, too, rather than leave readers alone with the text.

Many groups are still considering, in light of the upcoming copyright expiration date, what course of action to take. Thomas Krüger, the president of Germany’s Federal Agency for Civic Education, said that his institution may create special materials to give to teachers, in the event that neo-Nazis start handing out the book in school yards. However, he added, his experts believe there is very little chance that students today would be “infected” by “Mein Kampf”: “Without lengthy explanations, most of it is incomprehensible.”

Some people think the Bible should be banned; others think the Koran should be banned.

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln

“You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.
― John Lydgate

I think I know God better than that. Two people of the same sex that lie with one another can be forgiven. I know what Leviticus 20:13 says. And I believe with all my heart that that verse has not always been in scripture. We all know that the bible has been tampered with many times. Same sex couples can be forgiven. Blasphemy and murdering are the only two that can’t be forgiven. I would never kill two gays or two lesbians. Again, like I said, that verse has not always been there.

Chas, I agree. Freedom of speech does not mean we can yell “fire” in a movie theater. For every freedom there is a corresponding responsibility. We need to be responsible in what we say. But now, speech that hurts people’s feelings rather than their physical body is being outlawed. But if we can’t say things that will hurt someone’s feelings, then there is no longer any freedom of speech. Freedom to say what everyone will agree with and like is not much freedom at all.

Jason, the magazine Charlie Ebdo chose to publish cartoons deriding the so-called prophet Mohammad, knowing that to do so would cause great offense to Moslems. Under UK law, that might not have been lawful, because it could be construed as ‘being behavior likely to lead to a breach of the peace’. As it happens, that is precisely what it led to. However, I would be among the first to stand against use of violence by the Islamic extremists who used violence against the staff of Charlie Ebdo and others. Free speech should be used to counter attempts by people to impose their wishes on others.

You will note that my use of the phrase ‘so-called prophet Mohammad’ might also be construed as coming under the category of ‘behavior likely to lead to a breach of the peace’, but it is what I believe to be true, whereas the Charlie Ebdo cartoons were deliberately mocking.